I flew ten or so times in November and was patted down frequently and full-body scanned. I was not bothered personally by the mostly inane procedure, but outraged by the symbolism of it all. (The sheer number of TSA employees standing idly about the scanners and pat-down area was far more disturbing).

Let me elaborate. The federal government the last few years has all but apologized for Guantanamo, fretted that a false rumor of a flushed Koran offended Muslims worldwide, torn the country apart over the stupid move to build — in St. Stephen/al-Aqsa/Hagia Sophia style — a mosque at Ground Zero, chest-thumped about trying KSM in federal court with all the accompanying legal gymnastics, worried (via the voice of Gen. Casey) that diversity programs might be imperiled after Maj. Hasan murdered fellow soldiers, was careful to Mirandize the wannabe mass murder Mutallab (and to insist at first that he “allegedly” tried to blow up his fellow passengers) — and on and on.

In other words, one gets the message already: our own government cares a lot more about not offending 20-40 year-old foreign born Muslim males, both citizens and not, who in theory fit the profile of global terrorists between 2001-2010 than it does about bothering an 80-year-old American citizen in a wheel chair — all by refusing to ask pertinent, logical questions of would-be flyers. (e.g., “So you’ve been to Yemen the last two years; explain the purpose of your trip”; “Explain when and why you got this green card at the Pakistani consulate.”)

Reader, remember: all this is merely symptomatic of the indulgence and luxury of peace. Had Mr. Mutallab succeeded or the Time Square would-be bombers incinerated 1,000 shoppers, then all this nonsense would vanish for a year or two. Suffer another 9/11, and John Kerry and Harry Reid will be railing about the need to expand Guantanamo — albeit screaming, “Bush did it!”
A Funny Sort of Morality

Most who come illegally from Mexico are desperate to leave a failed state — though reticent to explain why they think Mexico is failing. They want work and often work here terribly hard. But that plight does not mean that there are not moral problems in coming here illegally. The guest can break the immigration law of the host on grounds he is poor, but the U.S. poor then cannot pick and choose whether to file a 1040 or not? Federal laws sorta, kinda matter sometimes? Cut in front of the immigration line, in a way that others from India or Korea do not? Is the Chiapan who files for legal status and goes through the labyrinth of obtaining citizenship a fool? In the aggregate, the illegal community can send tens of billions of dollars in remittances back to Latin America, while tapping into entitlement support from their hosts, but cannot afford catastrophic health insurance? (Could we not bar anyone on public assistance from sending money out of the country without substantial taxes?)

We have created a situation that simply could never be emulated without social chaos (e.g., on what grounds do we say that a million Greeks or five million Sudanese could not in theory come en masse to the United States — that it would be wrong, illegal, impractical?). Would the Latino community accept a million from Mozambique arriving in the American Southwest every year — without diplomas, without English, and without legality? We know illegal immigration is supposed to be unlawful, expensive, and contradictory — but is it not also abjectly one of the most unethical and amoral phenomena of our times?

The Cuts to Come

I liked the recommendations of the deficit commission, except the despair that the budget won’t be balanced for decades, long after I’m dead. I cannot accept that. We forget that balancing a budget is not just a matter of fiscal health, but one of psychology as well. Collectively the nation will regain its self-respect only when it sheds the self-image of a debtor, spendthrift, softie, taker, or splurger. Our problem, even in recession, is not austerity, but surfeit. I would quadruple the proposed cuts until video games sales crash, a family shares an iPhone, and the huge plastic Christmas Santa Clauses at Wal-Mart go unsold. Today I was driving in Fresno in a so-so area, the radio was blaring about RECESSION!, and at the stop light were four new cars — two Lexuses, a Volvo, and a top-of-the-line Camry.

The public is starting to sense that the progressive dream for us is an abject nightmare, castor oil far worse than the illness. And there is no reason to believe that the losses of 2010 are over with yet — if Pelosi, Reid, and Obama stay in denial and think they only need to communicate more effectively their EU-plans of redistributive change.

As a historian, you know that the richest man usually is stripped of his wealth by the king. Proscription. One way to avoid it is to give it away before the king takes it. Another delaying tactic is to argue that the king can get more if he proscribes the top 10,000 instead of just the top 2.

A wealth tax would be a lot fairer than an income tax because it would remove all of the preferences and techniques for growing net worth without showing much income. Let’s say a 5% per year flat tax on everyone’s net worth above $100k. You could exclude home equity from the calculation. I predict that all of Wall Street, Hollywood and most of the wealthy coastal eco-poseurs would scream bloody murder. But when you think about it, they would really have no defense because the more they paid, the more they would be left with. What would Buffet say – “hey, that only leaves me with 29 billion”.

However, even if such a tax structure were possible, it would bypass all those public service employees who hold pensions worth multiple millions. The rest of us would be heavily taxed as we attempted to save for our own retirements in like manner.

If Buffett is worried about the deficits and has confidence in government to use our money wisely (hence his desire for greater tax revenue), then why in heaven did he pledge so much of his money to the Gates Foundation and other tax-exempt private philanthropies? The world’s two richest men have in essence taken billions of dollars in future revenue away from the United States Treasury, inasmuch as such private foundations will allow the Buffett/Gates fortunes to be exempt from substantial inheritance taxes on their estates.

What’s wrong with a 10% cut is that it would leave them 30% overpaid in comparison with private sector workers. End their pensions, let them contribute to a 401K like the rest of us.

Make Congress subject to all the laws they pass. Radiation or fondling for Senators and we’d see some changes fairly quickly… Yes, I know they aren’t terrorists. Neither am I. Change happens when they have to eat their own dog food.

I’m voting for the guy who pledges — and means it — to overturn the ridiculous and ruinous Executive Order #10988, penned by John F. Kennedy in 1962, permitting public-sector employees to unionize.

These unions vote overwhelmingly Democratic and that’s where their campaign contributions go, too. The democrat pols have zero incentive to reign in outrageous demands, and in any case, it’s the taxpayer who picks up the tab. We’re funding our own demise.

If a candidate doesn’t have the spine to take on the unions whose salary, pension, and healthcare demands are hugely responsible for our nation’s indebtedness — then he can pound sand.

I DO pay into a 401K and, as a law enforcement officer, I do a job that most of you wouldn’t do because there’s no profit to it or you don’t have the wherewithal or brains. With my education and background, if I worked in the private sector, I’m told I should be making about 50 percent more than I’m paid. I am following a calling. My fellows, my brothers and sisters in the profession, are the ones that lay awake at night wondering how to keep the rest of you safe in your homes.

And what makes the rest of you think that a union of government workers has any power? We can’t go on strike and we can’t bargain for our contracts. My pay scale gets set by Congress, and WE don’t make enough collectively in Government Service, to make a significant dent in the budget.

Speaking as an “overpaid” federal employee, I’d have no problem with a 10% pay cut, if somehow it could be coupled with an end to earmarks and “stimulus” frauds.

Incidentally, I and most other feds hired after 1983 have as the main part of our retirement plan a 401k-type fund which we contribute to. There is still a small defined-benefit pension component also, but it’s not the size of the ones that are dragging states and cities down. I suspect the public-sector unions screamed about that change at the time, but as you’ll recall we had a president then who was not afraid to give them the finger..

Even when the esteemed doctor isn’t trying, he presents a veritable unified field theory of the radical left:

1. The silliness of Warren Buffet – a financial genius who can’t escape the adolescent fantasies that got his envied friends the girls when he was 15
2. North Korean kooks – the creation of American liberal cowards, past and present
3. Airport “security” – conditioning the country for the police state to come
4. Proud Mexicans – no person in the US, no matter how eagerly they participate in our bounty, can be allowed, for even a second, to sing its praises
5. The Budget – just another way to balkanize the country. One more step on the relentless march to the totalitarian state.

But lets go behind the headlines, and review again the strategy of the ists: take over the means of communications, infiltrate and dominate the schools, highlight/create/exacerbate differences among the people, create a messianic figure, construct the halo’ed backstory, sieze power, declare a mandate, go beyond that by an order of magnitude.

And if that doesn’t work…..there is NOTHING they won’t do. Korea isn’t important because of what is happening today. It’s important because of what will happen in a year….when a nice little shooting war for our brave fuhrer will be just what the doctor ordered.

“3. Airport “security” – conditioning the country for the police state to come”

proreason – I think you nailed it. Just a dress rehearsal for harsher more intrusive measures to come now that the TSA has become an entrenched bureaucratic entropy driven agency unto it’s own. Get the sheepeople conditioned to bend over on cue. Wouldn’t you think Professor Hanson (for example) ought to be able to travel on the XYZ Airline on name recognition alone once it was determined he is indeed the Victor Hanson named on the ticket? Even truck drivers require back ground checks with positive biometric ID to enter sensitive facilities these days. It would be very easy to rule out underwear bombs in Hanson’s pants without the humiliating pat downs and scans once we know it is really him! It is very worrisome to consider the kind of knee jerk measures the Feds may impose on us if and when some sort of terrorist act is successful.

Buffet ought to pay higher taxes. Why should he and Bill Gates be the persons who choose how our our fortunes are redistributed? Do you really want Bill Gates spending the money you paid for his (you fill in the adjective) operating system in India?

VDH, I wish for a Happy and healthy Thanksgiving for you and yours and that the coming year is blessed for you and our nation.

Couple of points:

The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

The bottom half (also known as hardline Democrats) paid next to nothing.

The system is indeed unfair. Just not the way the lapdog media and the Socialists masquerading as Democrats portray it.

I also don’t get the way we use words any longer. The “Bush era” tax “cuts”? This is filled with subliminal garbage. The current tax rates is what I call them.

Korea is not a deranged neighbor. They are a rabid dog. They growl, snap and froth at the mouth. Kind of like Ted Rall in grey pajamas.

You can’t reason with a rabid dog. We keep saying “sit boy, roll over” but the dog has rabies, not obedience training problems. In fact, our foreign policy seems to be treat training for all the world’s rabid dogs. Obama as Despot Whisperer.

We serially ignore the sweet disposition ones that we used to love, that is, except when Obama feels the need to kick a Netanyoodle.

We can’t seem to get the balance down between our import/export Pacific Rim trading partners, but, then again, this administration is really only interested in importing Democratic Party voters. If only we bordered Venezuela.

The “gotcha” question now for the Democratic shill machine, formerly known as our media, is what specific cuts are you (Mr/Ms. Congressman/Senator) advocating?

You see, if it’s not the defense budget…then, they are going to scare the little old ladies with Medicare, Social Security, etc. Or, they are going to say “that’s barely a dent” on THAT item!

I have an idea, let’s cut all the “green” nonsense and start tapping our natural resources, pay off the drunken binge “stimulant” spending and then we can worry about pet projects, like funding our future.

Like Buffet, the majority of income has come from financial activity, much of it skimming world wide money flowing through New York. Take the case of the bailouts of the financial companies. Who picked up the tab with the devaluation of the dollar, and the destruction of common savings? The working class,worker pensions,and future generations. So, for financial companies, and those that have, do and will prosper from them, private profits and public debt.

In some ways I see the financials, and the wealthy as much a product of Washington as the welfare and their plantations. Neither could survive with out Washington taxing out the middle class.

Neither the sons of the wealthy, nor the deranged, uneducated louts of the welfare plantations serve in the military. Roughly, but frankly, I feel we’d be a better country if tomorrow I woke up and both classes were gone.

Excellent comment. Why is it that a violation of the Fourth Amendment, ostensibly to deal with ‘terrorism’ (a word that both Obama and his administration refuses to use) – is considered acceptable by the Obama gang and the left, but asking someone if they are here illegally, working illegally, using our services but not paying taxes for them – is considered ‘racist’?

Furthermore, how can a random search accomplish the stated goal of ‘stopping attacks on our airplanes’? Randomness is just that; it’s accidental and results will be as inefficient as any bureaucracy. The Israeli system doesn’t make the serious error of checking people randomly; it questions, observes and analyzes passengers and selects those who ‘tweak differently’ for further questions.

I’m beginning to think that this airport check is less about our security and a great deal about money. Enormous contracts have been set up to pay for these scanning machines; new people have had to be hired to run them and to stand by and ‘pat down’ others. Which companies are benefiting from this financial bonanza?

Meanwhile, the choice method of terrorism has moved to mail packages. Not people.

“Why is it that a violation of the Fourth Amendment…is acceptable .. but asking someone if they are here illegally.. is ‘racist’?”
I realize this is a rhetorical question but I believe this device essentially yields points to the left. Of course the former is not acceptable and the latter not racist. But, in a war of words, ideas and civic deeds, the words, deeds and ideas have to hit the bulls eye as many times as possible. Stating the obvious over and over is repetitious but that is how sales are made.
When silly lefties say silly things, they need to be called silly. When they make ridiculous charges, they need to be told they are ridiculous. When they advocate lawless nonsense, they need to be told that is what they are doing. These people have no moral compass so it is up to the right to provide it.

The two companies selling the nudie scanners have former Homeland Security administrators in top positions. Deepak Chopra, chairman and CEO of OSI Systems that makes one of the nudie scanners, was invited to accompany President Obama on his recent junket to India and beyond.

The TSA’s stated intent a few years ago was to buy 150 scanners for secondary screening at major airports. The stated intent earlier this year was to buy 450 scanners for primary screening at most airports. Now, the TSA says it will buy more than one thousand scanners (at $200,000 each). Yes, there are lots of people sucking down millions of taxpayer dollars for these worse-than-worthless, degrading, security porn shows.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too Professor. But, my god, the bill for our collective stupidity and neglect will be coming due in 2011 and I fear that this administration and the clueless/spineless media, are just not up to the task of defending our national interests.

The insanity in paying off little troglodytes like Kim Jong Il when they threaten you with a bat should be obvious, however as so many do not seem to get it I commend to your attention the immortal words of that Great Poet, Rudyard Kipling:

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: –
“We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ‘em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: –
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: –

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!”

Another perspective of the tax rate imbalance is that 47-53% of non payers to payers. What happens when that rate inverts? Perhaps the nation is better served if everyone contributes something.
Also, having these sliding scale rates, and the call for the rich, or the upper class, or the better off to pay more seems to be the undemocratic call to class warfare. It is polarizing and establishes inequality as the narrative amongst the citizens.
The debt is the government’s problem, let them not eat so much cake, then ask for more off our plates.

The Deficit Commission is yet another repeat of Lucy and the football. Once again, we’re promised a plan to cut spending and raise taxes to reduce the deficit. Once again, it’s only political cover to raise taxes while the spending cuts never happen. If they were serious about reducing the deficit, cut spending first! Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen, though. A recent article in WSJ points out the reality – for decades now the budget has grown an average of $1.17 for each additional dollar of tax revenue. In addition, the Deficit Commission has established the new norm for the budget at 21% of GDP instead of the historical average of 18.5%. The only reason the new norm is so high is to account for the “stimulus” boondoggle last year.

In the late 1980s, one of us, Richard Vedder, and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University co-authored a often-cited research paper for the congressional Joint Economic Committee (known as the $1.58 study) that found that every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results.

We’ve updated the research. Using standard statistical analyses that introduce variables to control for business-cycle fluctuations, wars and inflation, we found that over the entire post World War II era through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 of new spending. Politicians spend the money as fast as it comes in—and a little bit more.

We also looked at different time periods (e.g., 1947-2009 vs. 1959-2009), different financial data (fiscal year federal budget data, as well as calendar year National Income and Product Account data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis), different lag structures (e.g., relating taxes one year to spending change the following year to allow for the time it takes bureaucracies to spend money), different control variables, etc. The alternative models produce different estimates of the tax-spend relationship—between $1.05 and $1.81. But no matter how we configured the data and no matter what variables we examined, higher tax collections never resulted in less spending.

Once again, they’re expecting us to fall for it. Let’s not be so gullible this time.

But you don’t need any hard data to be absolutely certain that it’s true. We have had 80 years of belt tightening, deprivation, promises, commissions, budget cuts, pay-go, and a million other diversionary tactics, and where do we stand?

On the precipice of losing everything hundreds of millions of people have fought and died for for centuries, that’s where.

REUTERS -25 Nov, 2010. Fear, frustration and feces-hurling rage were just some of the emotions expressed by bumbling blog troller No-Sensey today when the rope suspending his tire broke. No-Sensey, sometime spokeschimp for Soros–funded MoveOn.org and full time leftist apologist and stuffed animal molester went on a shrieking, feces-hurling, cage-rattling rampage when the rope that he had been chewing finally parted, sending him and his favorite tire crashing to the floor of his habitat. No-Sensey did not appear to be physically harmed from the incident, the tire having cushioned his fall. When interviewed about the incident, No-Sensey signed, “Tire bad apple hungry smoke want”.

No-Sensey’s mother, when reached for comment, added “ook ook.”

No-Sensey was later pacified with his favorite treat, a PCP-laced cigarette.

Gee, Ivan, I admire your grasp on history. It’s quite proper, isn’t it? Charming, really, in a misguided and gullible way. Cute. I like it. Stick with that. It’ll be easier for you to remember than the truth.

Both the spending and the quantitative easing measures of this administration are hare-brained at best and deliberately destructive at worst. Either way, the people have to do something beyond merely sending fresh new Republican faces to congress and state houses — who too often end up being swallowed up by the establishment.

Pay attention to your people, every single action they take as your representatives — and make sure they understand that while the grassroots don’t have powerful lobbyists, together our voices are a lobby, and louder, and more powerful than the ones in DC — because we will be merciless at the ballot box.

Regard leftist ravings and bizarre plans as a war against the rest of us, as a final outburst of all the restrained bile and aggression within their twisted selves. as frustration over an anticipated and total make over and degradation of America, and as the federal government as their beloved agent in all this, oh, and the unmasking of their hero Hussien the moslem, as a corrupt and laughably incompetent fool, and you begin, just begin to grasp what we are up against.
And Janet N wants to have TSA checks just about everywhere. I do hope we have elections in the future.

And the federal courts. Let’s not forget about the activist judges appointed by progressives to the federal courts. The damage they inflict upon the country lasts for decades after their appointment.

Long story short: I work from time to time with assistant AGs, and I hear their horror stories about trying to reason with Clinton appointees to the federal courts. We’ll be dealing with Obama appointees for the next 30+ years, that’s assuming we still have a functioning republic.

Although it’s 35 years old now, I beleive the best description of the modern Leftist is “The Camp of the Saints” by Jean Raspail. Not only did he accurately predict the immigration crisis of today, but gives a vivid description of the Leftists’ motivation in doing what they’re doing in other situations as well. Only a Frenchman, I believe, could have written such an excellently vitriolic novel.

Ever wonder why Buffet is a proponent of the inheritance tax? It is not because he is a noble individual. He is, rather, a POS parasite who profits from human misery by buying up the “family farm/business” at ripoff prices because the heirs cannot afford to pay the inheritance taxes on the business/assets that their father, grandfather, or great grandfather worked so hard to earn so that their children could have a better life. A real great American! The truly wealthy pay taxes at a much lower rate than the “rich” in this country. After all, they have enough money to buy the politicians.The wealthy want to keep the club as small as possible.

I recall that when Germany was reworking its tax code (I believe under Schroeder) they talked a lot about how to keep family businesses, which are a lot of Germany’s manufacturing sector, alive. I believe they settled on exemptions from inheritance taxes for people who kept the family businesses running for a certain amount of time. This probably also has a effect on inheritance issues among multiple heirs and serves as a motivation to run the business well. I don’t know details and I am no tax expert, but it is certainly worth considering the German debate and its outcome before we impose drastic inheritance taxes.

There is little hope for any significant improvement in the United States, insofar as economic matters of the United States are concerned so long as President Obama is in office, reinforced by a Senate in which the Democrtic party holds a majority. The President will not abandon the idea that the country can spend its way back to “full employment”, not the least because the spending he contemplates is designed to garner votes of the recipients.

The picture gets bleaker. Russia,China, Iran, Hamas and the Hezbollah all understand that in 2012, there may be a change of administration which will install in the office of the President someone who sees accurately the threat these organizations present to us. Why should they not try something now? President Obama will bow profoundly to whomever makes the attempt and apologize for our misbehavior.

“Why do so many of these zillionaires chase the dollar… [and] suddenly in the twilight years want to make it tougher on others? Is that the price of penance?”

Not penance. Absolution. These zillionaires turn government into god and the Treasury into church coffers. Like the wealthy Catholics of the middle ages, the zillionaires seek absolution before death by donating a sizable chunk of their wealth to their church. Next, in order to provide more favor from their god, the zillionaires try to take money from all well-to-do people and funnel it to the church. Thus, having filled the church’s coffers, the zillionaires become more beloved of their Pope (or President) and more likely to land a cushy spot in heaven or a better life after reincarnation.

These zillionaires turn government into god and the Treasury into church coffers. Like the wealthy Catholics of the middle ages, the zillionaires seek absolution before death by donating a sizable chunk of their wealth to their church.-Dr. T

All correct except that phrase “like the wealthy Catholics of the middle ages.” As Bible-believing Christians know, “absolution before death” can be obtained through the sacrament of confession. This costs no money at all, the Catholic church has always held that simony is a sin.

There weren’t any Catholics in the Middle Ages. There were Christians, pagans, and heretics. Followers of the Roman Rite, the Eastern Rite, and various ancient rites ‘grandfathered-in’ before the big shake-out of the 12th Century, were Christians. Everybody else was a pagan or a heretic. We live in what, until recently, was a Protestant culture, so they see things very differently (i.e., they are Protestants, not heretics). For us ‘Catholics’ nothing’s changed.

The phrase is correct. Your claim that the Catholic Church has always held simony to be a sin is incorrect. Catholics believed that the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, could grant absolution unrelated to confession, repentance, or meaningful atonement. Absolution was granted based upon money or property donated to the Church or because of political actions that favored the Church. A wealthy person could buy papal absolution. A powerful person could change a law and receive papal absolution. The parallels to our supposedly non-secular government are remarkable.

My father, a WW2 Navy vet (SK2), is deceased. My mother, however, is still alive and vibrant at 82. She keeps her opinions largely to herself, which seems a fairly common trait among the Greatest Generation. But just yesterday she said something that actually scared me.

She said under her breath, “I can’t believe I might relive the nightmare of the 30s and 40s.”

This is from a woman who lived through the depression and WW2 and lost a brother in the Korean War. She has a perspective very few of us possess. Just how bad was it, and just how bad is it going to get again?

Rest easy friend. Fox News is going to negotiate with the DNC and the RNC to see how many candidates for the presidency in 2012 will be required to stop the cultist Romney and whom they shall be.

Once that is done O’Reilly, Brit Hume, Geraldo, Juan, Huckabee and some of the other brilliant political analysts at Fox will sit down and decide who the candidate will be and then inform their viewers of their decision. You know the drill, much as they did to ensure the re-election of John McCain to the senate a couple of months back.

Probably a heavy hitter from outside the ruling class like a Haley Barbour, deal maker supreme, will be tasked to save us. And he surely will.

Interesting to note that Bill Gates, the man of alleged compassion, living the charade of his monopoly on caring, is the same person who fired his partner under very adverse conditions. Paul Allen had taken a years leave of absence to battle hodkins disease. On his return, he discovered that he could keep his stock, but not his position and income.

That from Bill Gates. What a peach of a guy. The nice ones usually are frauds.

Buffet set up trust funds so that his heirs will not have to pay their “fair share” of death tax. Whereas Obama’s $200,000/yr “millionaires” can’t afford to pay off their houses, send their “rich” kids to college, and keep their heads above water.

Btw, Buffet does not work for his incomes, ergo higher income taxes do not affect him much. His earning is from “investment” which he can control to pay as little capital gain tax as possible, and he can buy money losing companies to take advantage of their tax credits. The rich $200,000 income earners financed TARP to bail out his Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo.

These rich hypocrites are as insufferable as the Green billionaire sex-craze puppy.

Of course they circumvent the inheritance taxes. Their lawyers write the rules.

Don’t think for a second that a single one of these uber-wealthy liberals will pay a penney of inheritance taxes under any scenario, ever.

Did kings pay inheritance taxes? Just the concept is laughable.

But frankly, I don’t have an issue with Gates or Buffet keeping their money. At least they earned it. Maybe they were lucky, manybe unscupulous…can’t sort through that and there will always be a million opinions….but there can be no question that 99% of what they now have came from their own efforts.

What I DO have a problem with is people like the Kennedy’s and Kerry’s…inherited wealth in the hands of societal parasites.

I know that taxing wealth sends up red flags in conservative circles, but think about it…do you actually think that people like the Kennedy’s and Kerry’s are productive citizens? Far from it, their “jobs” (other then imposing marxism on the rest of us) is to do everything possible NOT to create income, and hence, pay taxes. Their fortunes are invested in Municipal Bonds (the uber-rich’ very own tax shelter), idle property (if it was put to use, it would be taxed), and tax free trusts (thanks to armies of lawyers). These people DON’T create jobs. They DON’T invest in the country. They DON’T take risks. Their wealth SHOULD be taxed as if it were put to productive use.

I’m in favor of rescinding tax exemptions for Municiple Bond interest; rescinding all exemptions for Trust earnings; and for taxing unused property as if it were in use, for holdings over something like a couple of million in value. Then the taxes of productive citizens could be reduced by a few hundred billion dollars a year (i.e., a tax cut of 10-30% for people who work).

Love your columns. As to Warren Buffet: He believes he is the greatest investor of all time. That title is very, very important to him, as he is not successful in many, many areas. He wants to be the ALL-TIME champion investor. One way to do it: Raise taxes, and other barriers, now that HE is on top. Its like Usain Bolt, the world’s fastest man, wanting all FUTURE sprinters to carry weighted saddlebags while trying to break his records.

A few years ago Buffet practically disowned his adopted granddaughter because she had the temerity to give an interview to a local paper. He wrote her a letter in which he explained that her inheritance was at risk because he hadn’t “psychologically accepted” her yet. Nice guy, huh?

IC: Finally someone else said what I’ve been saying. The truly wealthy and uber wealthy like Buffoon, Gates, Soros, Hollyweird, and many lawyers do not earn an income. Therefore they do not pay income taxes.

So of course they can look magnamimous and super progressive but it is just a card trick.

Besides cutting back spending, reducing the size of government by defunding departments and programs, I’d like to see union dues taxed as well as 527s and all the left-wing charities taxed at 95%. All persons regardless of income should be taxed so that means the bottom 70% who pay next to nothing on their entitlements should be taxed.

Don’t forget tax-exempt “charities” do not answer to any group but their boards of managers/governors. Like the DNC. And WHO ARE THEY? Charities are new personal and political empire builders. Using people cajoled into “donating” to them as a good thing. As in never give a sucker an even break?

Remember also that charities must, to work where most needed, have the favours of the politicians at the helm of nations. HOW do they get such favour in those nations which, in international terms are known to be criminal and even genocidal?

Remember also their accounts, the populations and agencies they aid are virtually non-transparent : public records of moneys spent and effects on putative targets of the charities, AS WELL AS “other expenses” verified by lawful/official groups.

Remember also that in adddition to those VDH describes in the article there are economic, social and political off-shoots from charities, without accountability.

Charities are NOT a-political : e.g. Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, Oxfam, Red Cross, and NOW the Gates Foundation.

Anyone wonder why the burgeoning of charities in the world since the advent of the “New World Order” in the past half-century ? On the pattern of the LEFT established UN and the EU.

Centralisation of political and economic power. On the pattern of the LEFT (FDR) established UN at the end of WW II. This UN now recognised as one of the most incompetent and corrupt, since its inception, groups on the planet. United primarily against that most SUCCESSFUL representative of the West, the USA. In the EU increasingly aggressive efforts, using the carrot of benefit to their populations, to remove national sovereignty from its members.

Beware “Greeks” — the brotherhood — even when bearing gifts. AND there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

With regard to the Mexicans there is one huge and significant difference between them and the Indians, Taiwanese etc. namely that it isn’t much of an exaggeration to say you can skip to the U.S. from Mexico in a heartbeat whereas that is obviously not the case with India, Taiwan etc.

I was referring to Willow Palin’s bigoted Tweets. Why you evoked “jack off” re: her and “the nine year old” is beyond me – part of the conservative’s character that I will never understand. I think maybe Palin has more to fear from people like you than she did from that reporter next door.

What a privilege it is to be blessed by so great and prolific a
public intellectual as Victor Davis Hanson. I dare say there has never been a civilisation in which such modest places are so fecund as to produce such great men: think “Ike”……Reagan…..
and so many “unknowns” who secured liberty for all of us.

It makes us proud, even confident, that from Selma, CA emerges a “store of knowledge” and compelling prose that we count on during this worst of the existential crises since the Civil War.

Professor: Regarding recent actions by North Korea and the South Korean and US lack of reaction:

1. North Korea has demonstrated that one can carry out acts of war against American allies, sink their ships,bombard and kill their civilians, and America will not lift a finger to help. Of course, Israel has known this for years, being constantly attacked by Hamas & Hezbollah and being told to make concessions and “not use excessive force” in defending her citizens. Now, South Korea is in the same boat, and one should not be surprised to see Iran, Libya, Al-Qaida, and others acting more aggressively and with more confidence. Obama has made the USA a paper tiger.

2. American security promises are now worthless. Every country must now decide to either appease and accomodate aggressors as South Korea appears to be doing, or seek out alliances with other great powers. South Korea apparently lacks the will to take effective actions on her own. A non-nuclear state clearly cannot compete with a nuclear state no matter what other capabilities she may have. Every state concerned with her own survival will draw appropriate conclusions.

For my part, I’ve always felt that courtesy and decorum were good default postures when discussing politics, since passions can flare quickly; and since it is sometimes necessary to crush your opposition. Giving everyone the benefit of the doubt therefore, helps avoid unnecessary escalations. However as most of us have learned these last two years, giving the likes of Mr. Dionne the benefit of a doubt is both a tactical and a strategic error. And giving them power is a catastrophe. Ideologues like him must be countered and discredited. The best approach is to demolish their argument and move on. Spending too much time on them feeds their egos and encourages them. Fortunately they are usually quite transparent.

For instance Dionne reveals his true intent through his ‘hard-wired’ inability to resist a tone of condescension in his analysis of Rush Limbaugh’s thesis. Dionne opens with a truce offering, ruing the fact that Thanksgiving has become an ideological football. But then he immediately proceeds to subtly put the onus for this on Conservatives. How truly conciliatory of him! He accuses Conservatives of reactionary thought-crimes by their refusal to acknowledge that Thanksgiving is as much a celebration of multiculturalism and socialist (redistributive) values as it is of rugged individualism and free enterprise.

Thanksgiving is uniquely American, and America is unique in that it has bestowed both more wealth and more freedom on more of its citizens than any society in history. Does Mr. Dionne really think that this is due to our innate collectivism? Surely he must realize that it is by emphasizing entrepreneurship that we have prospered. We grant some of our power as individuals to government to mitigate our excesses; but otherwise expect it to stay out of our way so we can compete and create freely. If our ancestors had just been about imperial subjugation like the Spanish and Portugese, then the US today would look like Mexico.

It is both juvenile and absurd of Mr. Dionne to suggest that conservatives (libertarians, centrists etc.) do not recognize the importance of communal values. Or that individual freedom can only prosper in a society that enforces some limits. But the implicit accusation he is making is that by resisting Obama’s trans-formative agenda, we are hypocritically clinging only to those founding values that further our own selfish interests, and rewriting history to erase the rest. No. We simply don’t believe it is up to government to enforce ‘communal values’ most of us don’t share; to the point that they are rammed through along strictly partisan lines (without being read) and against massive public opposition; resulting in historical defeats for Dems in subsequent midterm elections. But I guess basic logic is not Mr. Dionne’s forte. .

Historically, prosperity and freedom don’t go together. The US is a delicate balancing act in that it is able to produce both in unprecedented abundance. This was done through the recognition that the individual man or woman had an innate worth above and beyond whichever groups to which he or she may belong. (gender, race, family, clique, tribe, religion, state etc.) This unlikely proposition was truly ‘trans-formative’ in that it represented a clean break with the mainly redistributive, class delineated forms of government that had been the norm throughout history. This is the true source of American exceptionalism. To me therefore, that our ancestors were able to organize as functioning communities is not particularly remarkable or praise-worthy. Rather I give thanks for their determination to keep the heavy hand of the authoritarian state in check. Given his stance as a champion of Big Government, I can understand why Mr. Dionne does not share my sense of gratitude.

Mr. Dionne tries to re-extend his frayed olive branch once more by claiming that he only raises this divisive and distorted question in the spirit of raucous debate. But his method and his selective reasoning belie his real motive: to spread discord and self-doubt, on a day when most of only feel grateful. Standard Operating Procedure for the Left.

Nothing gets my blood boiling faster than a billionaire
demanding the rest of us pay more in taxes.

Notice when Buffett calls for higher tax rates he only
wants the rates raised on earned income, dividends and
capital gains. It’s irrelevent what your earned income
tax rate is when you are sitting on $50 Billion worth
of Berkshire Hathaway stock. If Buffett wasn’t such a
hypocrite he would be damanding a ‘wealth tax’ on people
as wealthy as he is. This would show that at least he isn’t
blowing smoke at the rest of us.

Here’s the solution for Buffet’s wish for higher taxes – the
new Congress should pass a law that taxes the holdings of
any billionaire who publicly calls for higher tax rates
on the rest of us serfs, at a rate of 98%. This tax
would create a surge in revenues to the Treasury, level
the playing field between Buffet and the have nots
and most importantly would allow Buffett to feel much
better about himself. Think the Omaha Billionaire would
go for this?

I’m actually quite an admirer of both Buffett and Bill Gates jr.
Both men have created a great deal of wealth, jobs, and a number of millionaires. I have no objection to them giving their money away if that is what they really want to do. It’s their money, but, IMO, they could do more good using their money to continue to create new businesses, new jobs, and more wealth. I know many people don’t care for billionaires just on principle, but it’s people like these two men (and many others, less well known) who have turned this into a wealthy nation. Creating new businesses, new products, and things useful to people is a skill that few have. Thus, most of us will never be filthy rich. In looking back, I recognize how fortunate I was that there were entrepreneurs that kept creating wealth and ever higher living standards. By working hard, saving, and investing some of that wealth ended up in my pocket. So, I try not to complain about about people like Buffett and Gates. I disagree with their ideas about taxes and giving money to charitable causes that seldom solve any problems. (As an example – Mosquito nets in Africa.)

I would not suggest that they pay extra taxes either, because the government (our representatives in Congress) will not use those extra taxes to pay down debt. No, every time taxes increase the spending increases by $1.17 for evey $1 of new taxes. Giving them more to spend is like giving booze to an alcoholic.

I would instead point out to them, that they, not the government, are the generators of what we need in this country – more new businesses, more jobs, more wealth. They both seem to have forgotten that. Maybe they would listen to VDH. More people of wealth and political influence ought to be doing just that.

It’s possible to make a case that Buffet’s success has a major component of luck. His investment life perfectly overlapped the greatest and longest lasting market boom in history, and he adopted his method for picking companies from someone else. He only bought about 50 companies in all those years. That worked out for him, but it was also a high risk strategy. Peter Lynch’s record is more impressive because he was picking hundreds of companies every year for decades. With Buffet’s strategy, if he had picked a couple of bad bets, the results would be hugely different. He also hasn’t done any better than anybody else after the market turned. If he was an unmitigated genius, his impressive run would continue forever. And now he says a lot of really stupid things. I’m not saying it was all luck, but you know, the guy that emerges with the biggest stash isn’t necessarilly the smartest player.

Gates is more impressive because he wasn’t just picking winners…it was his own effort. But even there, a lot of luck was involved. There were many business models for PC software when he started out. His model won out, as one pretty much had to do. Note that the Windows technology was largely lifted from Apple which had lifted it from Xerox. Gates never saw Google coming either, until it was too late.

Almost every highly successful person got there through a mixture of timing, luck, skill and ambition.

Now that Gates and Buffet have their’s they are enthusiastic socialists, in behalf of other people, since their enormous fortunes will never be touched. That says a lot about who they really are.

The most impressive business person of the 20th century was probably Perot. He built highly successful companies 3 separate times (EDS, Perot Systems, and the Alliance Airport), and picked IBM’s pockets for dessert. Steve Jobs is close, and if you include post 2000, might be even more impressive than Perot.

I’m really impressed together with your writing abilities and also with the format on your blog. Is that this a paid theme or did you modify it your self? Either way keep up the nice quality writing, it’s uncommon to look a great blog like this one today..